Tri-x 400/220 Petition?

[jamusu]

PE might have something diffrent but I have sent Kodak mail to 343 State Street, Rochester NY 14650.

Okay.

Jamusu.

 

[peri24]

yeah, i think the problem here is that there 2 kind of people "rational-statment" type, and emotional guys.
Maybe we should establish that all of the latest posts about film deletions from kodak were only for "emotional guys". Doing so we could cut off all of these childish accusations about if we know more or less than kodak or if we have any clue about business management. I think guys, and is pretty obvious to me, that these post are just emotionalish, is like when your favorite team lose or when your wife dump you, they are emotional discharges, so let them be and tell your statments somewhere else, thanks!

 

[whlogan]

Me, too....just let me know how, where & when

Logan

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Jamasu. Don't take any of this personally. I don't recall my particular instance (not worth the research) but I took it personally. It is not negativity. As I stated, it is reality. I am the inventory control specialist for Fisher Auto Parts in the Milford De store. A position I take seriously. If we have six different manufacturer's of the same product and three do not sell, eventually they get relegated to the warehouse. Now in my instance it is still available. But unless the customer is willing to wait a day or two (seldom happens) they simply buy what is presently available.

This is the premise that any business, including The Great Yellow Father, operates within. A dog is a dog. And if the product is a dog then it will no longer be ofered because there is no MASS MARKET for it any longer. Sure, there are niche markets but livelihoods and corporate survival cannot depend on such favoritism.

Again, it's only reality. Perhaps direct realism at times. Don't take it personally. It is not intended as such. Your desire is commendable and perhaps you might accomplish something. If you choose to pursue this then we all wish you luck and will help you in anyway possible. Personally, there is far more film to shoot than to worry about being discontinued and for me something like this would take away from my creative energy and my ability to consume the very thing I wish to perserve.

 

[jamusu]

Jamasu. Don't take any of this personally. I don't recall my particular instance (not worth the research) but I took it personally. It is not negativity. As I stated, it is reality. I am the inventory control specialist for Fisher Auto Parts in the Milford De store. A position I take seriously. If we have six different manufacturer's of the same product and three do not sell, eventually they get relegated to the warehouse. Now in my instance it is still available. But unless the customer is willing to wait a day or two (seldom happens) they simply buy what is presently available.

This is the premise that any business, including The Great Yellow Father, operates within. A dog is a dog. And if the product is a dog then it will no longer be ofered because there is no MASS MARKET for it any longer. Sure, there are niche markets but livelihoods and corporate survival cannot depend on such favoritism.

Again, it's only reality. Perhaps direct realism at times. Don't take it personally. It is not intended as such. Your desire is commendable and perhaps you might accomplish something. If you choose to pursue this then we all wish you luck and will help you in anyway possible. Personally, there is far more film to shoot than to worry about being discontinued and for me something like this would take away from my creative energy and my ability to consume the very thing I wish to perserve.

Huh?

I am a bit lost. What did you take personally?

Jamusu.

 

[Roger Thoms]

Best thing we can do is to buy film regularly and encourage others to to do the same. Actually it's buy, shoot, process, and print. I would sign the petition, although none of my camera take 220. Sorry I haven't been any help keeping up the demand for 220.

Roger

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Sorry. Don't remember exactly, oh yeah. I suggested something I had seen on another forum. It was some sort of statement that we would all hold ourselves to a high standard, a promise or 'commitment' if you will. It regarded critiques and behavior. Common sense kinda stuff that folks around here seem to adhere to be default. And this was pointed out to me, sometimes kind of tactlessly. I was really bummed. But I knew they were right. And those one or two that I took offense to I realized they weren't busting my chops. Just pointing out the obvious. It was a good idea. But redundant.

I have had occasional run ins with folks here and elsewhere. And sometime folks even take things I type here in the wrong way. Things cool down. People get past it. I guess I said all of that to say this. Very little said here is a personal affrontal to another. So don't sweat the small stuff and just keep on truckin'.

 

[jamusu]

Sorry. Don't remember exactly, oh yeah. I suggested something I had seen on another forum. It was some sort of statement that we would all hold ourselves to a high standard, a promise or 'commitment' if you will. It regarded critiques and behavior. Common sense kinda stuff that folks around here seem to adhere to be default. And this was pointed out to me, sometimes kind of tactlessly. I was really bummed. But I knew they were right. And those one or two that I took offense to I realized they weren't busting my chops. Just pointing out the obvious. It was a good idea. But redundant.

I have had occasional run ins with folks here and elsewhere. And sometime folks even take things I type here in the wrong way. Things cool down. People get past it. I guess I said all of that to say this. Very little said here is a personal affrontal to another. So don't sweat the small stuff and just keep on truckin'.

Chris.

I fully understand the challenge that is set before us. I know that the chance of Kodak obliging this request is slim to none based on the fact that they have discontinued TXP 320 and Kodachrome 64 so closely together, but there is still a chance.

People often times focus on what they deem to be the negative aspects of a given situation, such as the discontinuance of the two previously mentioned well loved films, without the thought of searching for any possible positive aspects the situation may or may not have. By doing so, the situation as a whole is not fully evaluated, causing these individual's to be blinded from any other possible outcome(s); thus permanently extinguishing their capacity to view the situation in any other manner but negative.

Many times the positive aspects, though they may not be as strong or as visible as what they believe the negative aspects to be, are placed right before them, as in the instances of Kodak releasing Ektar 100 recently, as well as their re-branding T-MAX 400 a couple of years ago, making it a far more superior film than it was previously.

This is a sign to me that Kodak still has faith in their film products, and it is my goal to discover how strong it is with this petition if supported by our fellow APUG members and subscribers. Until they tell us no, we should "KEEP ON TRUCKIN" just as you have suggested.

Jamusu.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

And you're right. Sometimes we tend to focus on the negative and take an 'Oh Well' stance. Don't know why. More than likely it is a degree of apathy. Me personally due to the fact that I do not use the film myself. I do my part, though. Whenever we have a postcard exchange I send a postcard to Brian Krutchton (probably butchered it) the new head of the film group at Kodak, on to Simon Galley at Ilford. Partly to share a little beauty with them. Partly to reaffirm with them that there are dedicated film users abounding and to place tangible evidence into their hands.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

If you think I'm wrong, refute me; otherwise, move on.

Granted the chances for a successful petition are slim to none. But you know, Mike, nobody gets hurt and no animals will be harmed in the attempt if someone chooses to try. The worst that can happen is no worse than what has already happened. No more 220 B&W film.

But consider this, the best that can happen is probably that one of the third-tier manufacturers sees in a strong petition effort what for them might be a possible market opportunity. Then they use their ingenuity to find a way to hand-spool and package and sell - at a profit for them - niche-market quantities of their existing B&W film products in 220 format. Sort of like they are already doing for 620 film, according to another poster here. (I know, I know. Substrate thinknesses, reformulations, leader papers, etc., etc. No one said it would be easy. That's where the ingenuity part comes in. See #5, below.) Such a scenario might be a win-win for all involved.

And while I realize that isolated data points do not a trend define, here are a few outliers on the scatter chart anyway, regarding the petitioning of past products:

(1) Kodachrome 200 (Professional, I believe?) Discontinued, or at least threatened with discontinuation IIRC, but the cancellation postponed for a fairly long period due to popular demand. I seem to remember that the argument made was (you guessed it) there were no viable suggested replacements.

(2) Azo. Kept in production, or at least available, beyond Kodak's plans more or less through the single-handed efforts of a well-known pair of fine-art photographers who directly petitioned Kodak. Eventually discontinued, true. But not before an apparently very viable replacement was created in a magnificent effort of perseverence by the same two photographers.

(3) Velvia 50. The original iteration. Cancelled by Fuji, but brought back due to, again, popular demand. In fact, returned to production in spite of the fact that a successor product (Velvia 100 of 100F, or something like that? I don't use it myself. Someone correct me here please) was already on the market.

(4) Agfa MCC B&W photographic papers, both FB and RC. Returned to production due to popular demand after the nightmarish death of AgfaPhoto. The small group of devotees of these products were apparently enough to constitute yet another viable niche market. And this after Kodak dropped their entire range of papers because, according to them, there was no more market for B&W photo papers. Go figure. And this same group is now reportedly waiting for the final surplus of existing Agfa film to dry up before attempting to resurrect new versions of those same films. Why? Because a small slice of the already small slice of photographers remaining who prefer film want to use them.

(5) And most improbable of all... on the verge of returning by popular demand... of all things... Polaroid-type film from The Impossible Project. As well as - can you believe it? - new Polaroid cameras from what's left of Polaroid itself. Yes, yes - they have apparently run into some last minute issues. But that happens when one tries to do impossible things, instead constantly carping about how they can't be done, and shouldn't even be tried.* If ever there was an analog product that should have gone the way of the dinosaurs in a digital revolution, baby, this was it. And yet... here it (almost) is.

So what say we let the 220-interested parties have a go at it with their petition? And maybe even wish them the best of luck. Where's the harm in that?

Ken

* Not referring to you here, Mike.

 

[Chazzy]

You must be speaking of your human nature or lack there of. I find it curious that many of your post's are laced with negativity and a misplaced view of elitism that you have enshrined upon yourself as though you are some type of "QUASI GOD of PHOTOGRAPHY". Tell me...is your soul truly as miserable as your writings suggest?

Jamusu.

Jamusu, you can add him to your ignore list, and you will never see his posts again. That's what I did.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Ah, petitions...

The last time we had a petition about a product, it was about supra endura (68 participants). The result of the petition can be seen here.

 

[jamusu]

I should have a rough draft of the petition posted to this thread a little later this evening to see what you all think of it.

Jamusu.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Attaboy.

 

[removed account4]

sorry to sound negative ... these petitions rarely do anything
but get everyone all worked up ...

 

[CBG]

Correct. The only petition that matters is the one where you "petition" the marketplace with your coin, by BUYING THE FILM IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITIES TO MAKE IT A PROFITABLE PRODUCT ... BUY WHAT YOU LIKE, USE IT, and TELL A FRIEND. The marketplace will take care of the rest.

Exactly. Wonderfully put. Why should KODAK, or Ilford or Fuji, believe that some petition will suddenly make the sales of a film rocket skyward and be profitable anew?

All a petition is, is bad PR. The sentiment is understandable but misdirected. If you want to use a film, buy it in quantity. Buy a ton of it; both to have lots of it if it gets discontinued, and to send a message that the product has a real market, so it does not get discontinued.

Sales are the real petition.

 

[lxdude]

Sales are the real petition.

But they don't sell it now. It's about producing 400 Tri-X in 220, not about bringing back 320.

 

[mikebarger]

I'm curious how many will sign up for 220 B&W, should be interesting to see how many are really into that format in B&W.

Mike

 

[erikg]

Maybe we should petition Kodak to sell their 220 finishing equipment to Ilford. I'd love to see 220 TMY-2 (or TX400) but I'd eat my darkroom towel if it actually happened.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Not a bad proposition for those who develop in cafenol.

 

[lxdude]

Christopher Walrath:

Wubba, wubba, wubba. Bing, bang, bong. Yuck, yuck, yuck and a fiddle-dee-dee.

I think that just about says it all.

 

[Mahler_one]

Regarding the need for 220 film, there is another option. Some manufacturers, once a year, will make a "run" of film in sizes that are unusual and not normally in great demand. At such time, photographers who use such film in the sizes needed will have an opportunity to purchase the film by pre-ordering, and pre-paying. In such manner, the manufacturer is assured that all the film that is made in a given size is sold and paid for, and the photographer has enough film to use. Obviously the risk is that the photographer will need MORE of the film that was originally ordered, but such risks can be ameliorated if extra film is ordered, and place in a freezer or refrigerator as an emergency supply. I am not sure if Kodak would be open to such a plan, but if enough people committed to buying 220 film, and actually paid for the film when they ordered, then Kodak might be willing to make another run or two of 220 film to see if such a "yearly" run made any sense at all. Of course, the system would only work if those who are upset about the loss of the film actually buy a certain minimum number of rolls. Who knows what such minimum number might be...could be that several hundred rolls would need to be purchased....depends upon the number of buyers, and the minimum run needed to make the film at a reasonable price.

Simply a thought.

 

[Ektagraphic]

I know some people have had special orders for sheets.....

 

[MikeSeb]

But you know, Mike, nobody gets hurt and no animals will be harmed in the attempt if someone chooses to try. The worst that can happen is no worse than what has already happened. No more 220 B&W film.

Nice post, Ken. This is the way that people should debate things, even when they don't completely agree. I see that my post wasn't "negative" enough to make you put me on your "ignore" list like some of our thinner-skinned APUG brethren have! (Guess I'll have to try harder!)

No question, Ken, people can petition to their hearts' content, and it would be great if they succeed.

But consider this, the best that can happen is probably that one of the third-tier manufacturers sees in a strong petition effort what for them might be a possible market opportunity. Then they use their ingenuity to find a way to hand-spool and package and sell - at a profit for them - niche-market quantities of their existing B&W film products in 220 format.

Maybe. That would certainly be a good thing. But once the petition madness subsides, they'd still be faced with the reality that the film wasn't selling in any meaningful way. Especially if a venture was starting from scratch at this, they'd face startup costs that would have to be recaptured over a long duration of niche-market-level sales, whereas EK or Ilford have at least some ability to harness economies of scale with their existing operations. These are big obstacles to overcome when trying to raise financing. Not saying it can't be done; maybe it can.

But making wooly-headed statements about what Kodak or Ilford or Bubba's FilmWorks can / should/must do, without knowing much about business or manufacturing or the industry as a whole strikes me as the rankest ignorance. (Obviously not speaking of you, Ken.) Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but not to have it accepted as fact without question. Further, I object to blithe musings about "commitment" and other nebulous blather that mean nothing, and contribute nothing to a rational discussion of the core issue that unites us all here: how to do what is within our power to keep analog materials available to us for years to come.

 

[Chazzy]

Maybe we should petition Kodak to sell their 220 finishing equipment to Ilford. I'd love to see 220 TMY-2 (or TX400) but I'd eat my darkroom towel if it actually happened.

It's not clear to me whether the TXP line had its own 220 machine, or whether color and black and white 220 went through the same machine. If the latter, Kodak needs the 220 machine for the 220 color films that are still in production.